AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—Claimant-injured dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation by judgment and award dated 18-12-2010 in MVC 523/2008 of the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track Court), Chitradurga, for short ''MACT'', has presented this appeal for higher compensation.
In the accident involving a motor vehicle that occurred on 26-7-2007 at about 12.30 p.m., appellant suffered fracture of ⅓rd shaft of clavical bone and injury to left bronchial and when shifted to Bapuji Hospital, underwent surgery for insertion of implants in his shoulder as an inpatient for 15 days. Thereafter wards, he was treated as an inpatient at Kasturba hospital, Manipal from 28-1-2008 to 30-1-2008, 4-2-2008 to 13-2-2008, 18-2-2008, 17-3-2008 to 23-3-2008, 23-6-2008 and 1-9-2008, where he underwent surgery of the left shoulder and took treatment as an out patient. In the testimony of the appellant, was introduced the disability certificate, Ex.P8, in which it is stated that the appellant suffered 72% disability to the left upper limb. In the absence of relevant material to establish either avocation or monthly income, the MACR reckoned Rs. 3,000/- as the monthly income and 24% as the whole body disability although it ought to have been 17% (72/4) to award the following compensation :
Pain and suffering
25,000/-
Medical expenses
38,761/-
Loss of income during laid off period food and nourishment
6,000/
Loss of future income due to disability (3000 x 12 x 24% x 14)
1,20,960/-
Total
1,93,721/-
with interest at 6% p.a. by the judgment and award impugned.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award of compensation towards ''pain and suffering and mental agony, as also ''food and nourishment'' are on the lower side and reckoning Rs. 3,000/- per month as income during the year 2007 is on the lower side. In addition, it is submitted that the MACT fell in error in not awarding compensation towards loss of comforts i.e. amenities, transportation, attendant charges and other incidental expenses, as also loss of future medical expenses.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent seeks to sustain the judgment and award impugned as being well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference and that the appeal preferred by the insurer was dismissed for non-prosecution and is not restored to file.
Regard being had to the nature of injuries supra, MACT awarded just compensation towards pain and suffering, mental agony, as well as food and nutrition.
The MACT was not justified in reckoning Rs. 3,000/- as the monthly income of the appellant since in the year 2007, it is recognised that an unskilled worker, in the least, would earn Rs. 4,000/- p.m., MACT reckoned 24% disability to the upper limb though it should have been 18%, however, regard being had to the fact that the insurer has not questioned the award, reckoning Rs. 4,000/- and disability at 24% and applying multiplier ''14'' as done by the MACT, the compensation towards loss of future income is Rs. 1,61,280/- as against Rs. 1,20,960/-, hence appellant is entitled to balance of Rs. 40,320/-.
The injuries suffered by the appellant compounded with treatment as an inpatient in the two hospital, noticed supra, appellant must have been out of duty for a period of three months. Reckoning Rs. 4,000/- as monthly income, appellant is entitled to Rs. 12,000/- as against Rs. 3,000/- awarded by the MACT and hence, entitled to the balance of Rs. 9,000/-.
Regard being had to the need for transportation to the hospitals and requirement of an attendant, as also incidental expenses, it is just and proper to award Rs. 25,000/- which the MACT failed to do.
The claim for loss of future medical expenses is not supported by evidence of the doctor and therefore, appellant is dis entitled to compensation.
Although the claim put-forth for loss of amenities of life is an entitlement having regard to the disability, nevertheless since the MACT has taken disability at 24% instead of 18% while awarding compensation for future loss of income, it is appropriate to opine that the compensation awarded towards loss of future income would make up for loss of amenities of life.
In the result, the judgment and award impugned is modified entitling the appellant to Rs. 74,320/- with interest at 6% p.a. in addition to what is awarded, and in all other respect remains unaltered.